You are entitled to your opinion.. But do you take that position one everything that can't be proven beyond all doubt, or just this one issue?

And, I have seen no empirical evidence that God exists. But another scientific maxim is that you can not prove a negative. So you can not prove God does not exist, either.

Fullerton CA

Username hidden
(18140 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

You know as well as I do that nothing can be proven beyond any doubt. We each take what we will from the data and make our own decisions.

Only one side is correct then correct? I mean seriously only one side is right on this issue? Is the world warming? yes. Am I responsible? NO...A natural event and instead of blaming the human race find a trend and a way to live with it .

Imperial MO

Username hidden
(12441 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

TBR,

if it can't be proven beyond all doubt, I'm not buying it. I'm not changing my lifestyle on assumptions by geeks. You want me to buy a non proven technology like a hybrid car..... prove it worthwhile. otherwise take your myth and shove it.

FOr years all the liberals have said "prove god exsists".... well prove your myth of global warming exsist don't expect me to take it on faith.

Lake Worth FL

Username hidden
(7207 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Again, this is a piece of political propaganda promoting an agenda that many people think would most likely be economically harmful to the United States, based on science that is questionable. Yet everybody is getting alarmed about it as if it were indisputable truth.

Destin FL

Username hidden
(14562 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Scotty,

You know as well as I do that nothing can be proven beyond any doubt. We each take what we will from the data and make our own decisions.

My comment is my observation on how difficult it is to have a reasoned discussion in this forum.

Fullerton CA

Username hidden
(18140 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

THE WORSE THE BETTER Why are scientists using the wrong numbers? Richard Lindzen of MIT thinks that, while most scientists were originally agnostic on the question whether human activity was causing global warming, “environmentalists and the media would exaggerate.” That eventually built up a public concern, and politicians responded by throwing research dollars at scientists. If global warming turned out not to be a problem, those dollars would go away. Better to keep us worried: “You’ve developed a scientific community that will do whatever it needs to do to make sure the answer isn’t obtained. Why should taxpayers pay for people not to find an answer?”

Kyoto wouldn’t stop whatever warming is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions; it would just slow it. And it would barely do that. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research calculated that the full global implementation of Kyoto would prevent 0.07 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2050, an outcome that is all but undetectable. To put a dent in CO2 levels, you’d need much greater emissions reductions than Kyoto calls for. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, for example, has called Kyoto a “first step” and said that “30 Kyotos might do the job.”

Thirty Kyotos would also come at the price of economic collapse. When it’s not even clear that the warming we’ve seen is hurting us — many argue that it’s a boon, citing its benefits to agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable — such draconian solutions should be unthinkable. And if it turns out that carbon dioxide is hurting the planet, it’s probably doing so at such a gradual pace that the best solution is to wait for markets to produce new innovations in energy technology. (And are we finally far enough away from Three Mile Island to utter the word “nuclear”?)

In the meantime, let’s stick with what we know — about melting ice, and about global warming generally. We’re not sure that we have a problem. If we do, we don’t know that we’re the ones causing it.

There is much less of a "consensus" on the matter than Gore claims.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Destin FL

Username hidden
(14562 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

tbr,

Just because people don't buy into this religion of global warming and takes issue with the crap spewed out by the left doesn't mean we're being mean to someone. This talk down attitude you liberals take is disgusting. PROVE global warming beyond any doubt and i'll consider further changing my lifestyle.... until that happens... i still live greener than al gore.